News Breaking Down the 2016 POTUS Race Contenders & Issues

[russ_watters]

Joyts certainly misspoke when he referred to the article as a study, but that doesn't change the fact the article is based on a study, and quotes from authentically peered reviewed political science experts. Unless you can demonstrate she mischaracterizes those studies and those experts, then your questioning of her is an ad hominem fallacy. There is no reason to suppose she can't properly characterize her sources without some evidence.

It's based on multiple studies, and even more polls, which means most of the analysis is her own. And it was deleted because yes, she mischaracterized the evidence she cited. Specifically, she quoted stats about negative views of Trump supporters and omitted qualifiers, changing the meaning. Put it this way: If I said "Americans support Trump" and omitted the important qualifier "some", people would rightly think it inaccurate.

 

[gleem]

Here's a scientific study and its conclusion.

[link deleted by mod]

Thank you Russ for your concerns for my 75 year old impressionable mind but I still have the link and am studying the left leaning information presented and drawing my own conclusions. Time and time again news articles are quoted and allowed.

Trumpists seem to be willing to go the extra mile to have someone "make the bogeyman go away" at any cost. I recall that Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

[Evo]

Thank you Russ for your concerns for my 75 year old impressionable mind but I still have the link and am studying the left leaning information presented and drawing my own conclusions. Time and time again news articles are quoted and allowed.

Trumpists seem to be willing to go the extra mile to have someone "make the bogeyman go away" at any cost. I recall that Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Gleem, what you do with information you choose to read on your own, none of our business, of course you can't discuss that here. We post only the most accurate information we can.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's based on multiple studies, and even more polls, which means most of the analysis is her own. And it was deleted because yes, she mischaracterized the evidence she cited. Specifically, she quoted stats about negative views of Trump supporters and omitted qualifiers, changing the meaning. Put it this way: If I said "Americans support Trump" and omitted the important qualifier "some", people would rightly think it inaccurate.

You are correct. Googling the stats I think you're referring to (the first one mentioned) I see an important difference between what she said, "In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States," and what the poll actually asked: "How do you feel about temporarily banning Muslims who are not U.S. citizens from entering the U.S.?" That is certainly a significant change of meaning, as you say.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump has been declared winner of the Michigan primary with 36.6% of the votes and about 65% of precincts reported. John Kasich is essentially tied for 2nd place with Ted Cruz. Marco Rubio is a distant 4th.

In Mississippi, Trump won first with nearly 48% of the vote, Cruz 2nd (nearly 37%), Kasich 3rd (~8%) and Rubio (~5%), with about 78% of precincts reported.

Sanders is leading in the Michigan democratic primary. Clinton won Mississippi with about 83% of the vote.

 

[russ_watters]

Trumpists seem to be willing to go the extra mile to have someone "make the bogeyman go away" at any cost.

That's a confusing statement since I would have thought Trump was the "bogeyman" that others are trying to make go away, but I think you are referring to me as a "Trumpist", trying to make criticism of him go away (which is a bit vague to be a "bogeyman"). Regardless, for the record, I am not a Trump supporter.

 

[mheslep]

...
Sanders is leading in the Michigan democratic primary. Clinton won Mississippi with about 83% of the vote.

I don't see the point of Sanders campaign continuing, unless he suspects an indictment. There's no chance of an open Democratic convention, and he does not have even a slight chance by trading states with Clinton in the North and being completely blanked in the South.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't see the point of Sanders campaign continuing, unless he suspects an indictment. There's no chance of an open Democratic convention, and he does not have even a slight chance by trading states with Clinton in the North and being completely blanked in the South.

Although Clinton is just past the halfway point to 2,383 delegates, I hope Sanders stays in the race, if only to be a voice for those who would like to see him win. The point is that we are a democracy with many differing and conflicting ideas. Besides, it ain't over 'til it's over.

Similarly, I hope Kasich stays in the race into the convention.

 

[russ_watters]

This one hasn't been discussed, that I've seen:

Republican front-runner Donald Trump moved to staunch scathing criticism of his national security views on Friday, executing an abrupt about-face by declaring that he would not order the U.S. military to violate international laws to fight terrorism.

...in a statement Friday, Trump said that he understands "that the United States is bound by laws and treaties" and that he would "not order our military or other officials to violate those laws and will seek their advice on such matters."

He added, "I will not order a military officer to disobey the law. It is clear that as president I will be bound by laws just like all Americans and I will meet those responsibilities."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/04/politics/donald-trump-reverses-on-torture/index.html

@lisab pointed out the Trump statement on killing terrorist's families in her Trump thread and as I said there, it was pretty bad: It was, probably the worst thing I have seen from him as a candidate because it was clear-cut. It didn't need to be spun or [mis]interpreted, but stood on its own, at face value, as an illegal/morally wrong statement.

So, what does it mean that he reversed himself on it? Was he lying then? Is he lying now? Did he change his mind? Did he just not think it through?

No, this supports the perception/opinion I've had all along: that he isn't serious. He's basically a character playing a reality tv/commercial role, with the primary goal of promoting the Trump brand for financial gain. But that raises a follow-up question: then why did he break character here? And the answer may be scarier than his generally meaningless rhetoric: he's starting to take himself seriously -- to take seriously the prospect that he could be elected President.

 

[russ_watters]

Although Clinton is just past the halfway point to 2,383 delegates, I hope Sanders stays in the race, if only to be a voice for those who would like to see him win. The point is that we are a democracy with many differing and conflicting ideas. Besides, it ain't over 'til it's over.

I agree. Both because it is the sportsmanlike thing to do and because 10 years from now it will make a bigger mark in the history books if he has a lot more delegates. If he quits now, they'll look like Clinton ran unopposed, anointed.

Note that this is different from the Republican race where candidates dropping out can impact the outcome (I'm looking at you, Rubio - and I would have voted for you).

 

[zoobyshoe]

So, what does it mean that he reversed himself on it? Was he lying then? Is he lying now? Did he change his mind? Did he just not think it through?

He got around it by saying he'd change the laws:

Just before leading the rally in the pledge, Trump once again opened the door to ordering the torture of captured suspected terrorists, just one day after vowing that he would not order military officials to violate U.S. or international laws.

"We're going to stay within the laws. But you know what we're going to do? We're going to have those laws broadened because we're playing with two sets of rules: their rules and our rules," Trump said pointing to ISIS's tactics, which have included torture and brutal executions.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/05/politics/donald-trump-florida-pledge-torture/

 

[Astronuc]

Note that this is different from the Republican race where candidates dropping out can impact the outcome (I'm looking at you, Rubio - and I would have voted for you).

I expect Rubio to stay in the race into the convention. I hope he doesn't drop out under pressure, just as I hope Kasich doesn't drop out either.

 

[russ_watters]

I hope he doesn't drop out under pressure, just as I hope Kasich doesn't drop out either.

Why?

 

[Astronuc]

Why?

Because he and Kasish are voices for those who are voting for them, and apparently I agree more with Kasich and Rubio than with Cruz or Trump.

John Kasich (55%) - environmental, immigration, electoral and science issues
Marco Rubio (41%) - immigration, healthcare, electoral and science issues

Ted Cruz (33%) - immigration, healthcare, electoral and science issues
Donald Trump (24%) - electoral issues

From - https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/pf-2016-voter-thread.857279/#post-5379257

I'm not sure how my answers matched the policy positions, since I didn't bother to check the details.

If we were to elect a GOP candidate for the next president, I'd prefer Kasich or Rubio to Cruz or Trump.Meanwhile, Cruz won Idaho, and edged into second place in Michigan. Hawaii reports later tonight, or wait until tomorrow morning.

 

[russ_watters]

Unless you can demonstrate she mischaracterizes those studies and those experts, then your questioning of her is an ad hominem fallacy. There is no reason to suppose she can't properly characterize her sources without some evidence.

I wanted to respond to this last night, but was too tired to organize my thoughts...

ad hominem is a big problem in this election season, but not for the reason you are describing: you are applying it wrong.

Ad hominem, when an irrelevant personal trait is specified is just namecalling. That's bad.

But when the personal trait being brought up speaks to the credibility/bias of the person who's opinion/analysis you are listening to, it is a crucial element of the analysis and not a fallacy at all. It is essentially the inverse of "argument from authority" -- which is also not a fallacy when used properly. It's "trust me, I'm an expert" vs "don't trust him, he's biased"; Not a fallacy(if true/relevant). "Don't trust him, he's a buffoon"; maybe a fallacy (more on that one later).
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/1/Ad_Hominem_Abusive

So if you aren't checking out the credentials and biases of your sources, you should be. When I read an op-ed on a news website, it generally comes with a few sentences of biography of the writer. I always read that first. If I read an op-ed on fracking, written by a Haliburton CEO, I know in advance which direction I need to be pushing (back) the logic when reading the article. This is an essential tool in a person's critical thinking toolbox.

ad hominem a problem when discussing Trump himself because much of the criticism of him is based on personal traits or even just vague namecalling labels that have little or nothing to do with the issues. Following the rules of ad hominem is difficult when discussing Trump himself because whether the labal is a fallacy or not can depend on if it is meant literally or figuratively.

For example, when I say Trump is a buffoon or a joke, I mean it literally: I mean that he isn't serious (about many statements). See my description above for more on that. It's a perception and I could be wrong, but if I'm correct, it changes the meaning/interpretation of his statements.

If someone else calls Trump a buffoon but also calls him a racist for the same statement (say, his wall statement), that's a self contradiction and a fallacy.

Things get really difficult if we try to separate those two. That's the problem with shock speech: it is often difficult to tell when the person is being serious and when he isn't.

Even worse, as mheslep has repeatedly pointed out, many of the same traits that are supposed to be damning when applied to Trump are common to many politicians. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong as criticisms, but it does make fair analysis harder...which, by the way, is a good example of how bias can creep-in to affect the analysis. Probably the biggest hidden source of bias in analyses such as the one I deleted is that they are focused on Trump/Trump's supporters. Lacking any context for comparison makes it impossible fairly judge the severity of the issue. That applies to the very statistic that was misreported, for example.

 

[gleem]

That's a confusing statement since I would have thought Trump was the "bogeyman" that others are trying to make go away, but I think you are referring to me as a "Trumpist", trying to make criticism of him go away (which is a bit vague to be a "bogeyman"). Regardless, for the record, I am not a Trump supporter.

My reference to a bogeyman was not in reference to Trump nor was I trying to imply you are a Trump supporter. My statement was based on my conclusions from the censored link that you deleted. Trump supporters are greatly concerned and fear terrorism, they are concerned and fear changes in our society, they are concerned and fear uncontrolled immigration they are concerned about that which they cannot control and perceive as an affront to their security or find offensive (their bogeyman). They want someone who willing to accept their mandate and take whatever action is needed to allay these fears even at the expense of giving up some of their liberties.in the process or maybe as they see it taking some liberties away from others.

 

[Astronuc]

Primary Night Takeaways: Hillary Clinton Is Shaken and Donald Trump Roars Back
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/u...on-is-shaken-and-donald-trump-roars-back.html

Mr. Kasich wins college towns. Mr. Cruz wins ultraconservative outer suburbs. Mr. Kasich wins liberal Republicans. Mr. Cruz overperforms with evangelicals.

For most of the 2016 campaign, the Republicans vying to overtake Mr. Trump have squabbled bitterly. But Mr. Kasich and Mr. Cruz have so far avoided direct conflict, and Tuesday’s results show why: They are just not competing for the same voters.

Sanders shocks with historic upset in Michigan, but Clinton’s delegate lead still grows
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/sanders-shocks-with-historic-upset-in-michigan-064300089.html

The media seems to make it more than it is.

With his startling, come-from-behind victory Tuesday in Michigan, the underdog senator from Vermont pulled off one of the biggest upsets in Democratic primary history — just as his hopes of catching up to frontrunner Hillary Clinton seemed to be fading.

It’s a result that may spell trouble for Clinton, as other Rust Belt states — Ohio, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — head to the polls in the weeks ahead.

It seems just a normal part of the ups and downs in a presidential campaign. I guess it was an upset as far as Clinton and her campaign are concerned, but Sanders still has traction.

 

[DiracPool]

This campaign is really telling. It reminds me of that saying about it's only when the tide goes out that you know who's wearing swim trunks and who isn't. You have to hand it to Trump for shaking things up. He's really exposing these so-called erudite politicians as a bunch of "posers." What's even more pathetic are people like Mitt Romney who thinks he's so important that his public service announcement is going to change the political dynamic. Well, it seems to have changed it in the opposite fashion that he intended looking at yesterdays results. I really gives you pause as to what kind of judgement these jokers have. I'm glad Mitt didn't get elected. The GOP is walking a a fine edge in their condemnation of Trump. It seems to be backfiring. Attacks like this can just reinforce the image that the good old boys network doesn't want anyone tussling their moronic cushy jobs.

I've been a democrat my whole life and will still probably vote for Hillary, but there's still 6 months left for me to change my mind..

 

[zoobyshoe]

But when the personal trait being brought up speaks to the credibility/bias of the person who's opinion/analysis you are listening to, it is a crucial element of the analysis and not a fallacy at all.

No. The fact a person has a known bias does not mean their utterances can, therefore, be dismissed. A biased person can make a true statement.

Circumstantial[edit]

Ad hominem circumstantial points out that someone is in circumstances such that they are disposed to take a particular position. Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[7]

The circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is only making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.[8]

To the extent Amanda Taub is basing her article on sources credible to PF (peer reviewed authors, properly constructed polls) the fact she is "the 'Senior Sadness Correspondent' at the left leaning Vox" is irrelevant.

So, if you based your deletion of the link on your perception she's biased, you should replace it. "...a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false."

 

[DiracPool]

and will still probably vote for Hillary

This is a good opportunity to weigh in on Hillary. This is a complicated dynamic. I understand that she is bought and sold by Wall street and political action committees. That doesn't bother me, really. I'm OK with that. What I don't like is her demeanor. She seems like a trained puppet on the stage. The way she turns her gaze to Bernie when he's talking (and others earlier) just smacks of her executing some playbook maneuver designed by her political campaign team. The problem is that it's so transparent. I wish she would just look forward to the audience and perhaps scribble some nonsense in her notebook. That would be much better.

But again, I will still probably vote for Hillary, NOT because I think she's such a great politician or leader, but because she's not a terrible politician and leader AND that has a great and capable team behind her. I like to think that voting for Hillary is actually voting for Bill Clinton's second act. I'm OK with that. I like Bill Clinton and have fond memories of the 90's. Even though nothing great happened in the 90's. Actually, nothing at all happened in the 90's after Curt Cobain died, but I digress. Even though nothing great happened in the 90's nothing terrible happened in the 90's either. I'm ready for another 8 years of nothing terrible happening, so I'm probably going to vote for Hillary, only if she stops looking at Bernie Sanders during the debates, though..

 

[mheslep]

No. ... A biased person can make a true statement.
...

As can a member of the Klan or any number of radical groups. The *possibilty* of accurate statements is not the PF threshold for references. Discriminating among sources based on reputation for accuracy is not an ad hominem.

 

[zoobyshoe]

As can a member of the Klan or any number of radical groups. The *possibilty* of accurate statements is not the PF threshold for references. Discriminating among sources based on reputation for accuracy is not an ad hominem.

True. Descrimination among sources based on bias is, though: "Vox leans left, therefore has no credibility," would be an ad hominem. "Vox is chronically inaccurate," would not be.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Vox is chronically inaccurate," would not be.

Now I wonder if this is rigorously true.

 

[zoobyshoe]

"Vox is chronically inaccurate," would not be.

OK, I think I spoke too soon and no longer think this is true.

Therefore, I don't think this is true, either:

Discriminating among sources based on reputation for accuracy is not an ad hominem.

I think, strictly speaking, this is an ad hominem, circumstantial.

edit: unless what you mean by it is that, without claiming all statements made by a given source must be inaccurate, enough are expected to be that sorting them out is not worth the effort.

However, I think this is true:

The *possibilty* of accurate statements is not the PF threshold for references.

 

[Dotini]

I understand that she is bought and sold by Wall street and political action committees. That doesn't bother me, really. I'm OK with that. .

You might as well have said you are okay with corruption and bribery. How do you possibly think anyone can take you seriously on any subject at all once you've said that?

 

[zoobyshoe]

What I don't like is her demeanor. She seems like a trained puppet on the stage.

I know what you mean. I think the cause of it is that all her early political experience was as "politician's wife." What you're seeing is that vapid pose all first ladies seem required to adopt. She never dropped it: it's what she knows, her automatic response when confronted by an audience.

 

[mheslep]

OK, I think I spoke too soon and no longer think this is true.

Therefore, I don't think this is true, either:

I think, strictly speaking, this is an ad hominem, circumstantial.

Textbook ad hominem is to claim an argument is *wrong or invalid*, simply because of the nature of the author. It is not ad hominem not to decline to review each and every reference, that is, to set some bar of due diligence for what is allowable in this forum. It would not be ad hominem, for instance, to ban Rolling Stone references on rape accusations at colleges, regardless of the author. That bar is necessarily subjective, and could be abused, but a moment's glance at the trash on the internet shows that PF does an excellent job, though we might not agree with this or that choice.

As it happens, from the reading I've done on Ezra Klein and Vox I find that he collects very intelligent and often interesting writers, and he leans left. Fine. I also think Klein is likely corrupt, not simply biased, due to his association with the secretive Journolist group some time ago that colluded to make opinion. Without more serious management involved, that taint flows to his authors.

 

[jim hardy]

This is a good opportunity to weigh in on Hillary. This is a complicated dynamic. I understand that she is bought and sold by Wall street and political action committees. That doesn't bother me, really. I'm OK with that.

We keep on electing from the same pool of politicians "owned" by special interests
and complaining about how things go.

A good seaman looks back at his ship's wake to judge how well the helmsman is steering.
A straight consistent wake indicates competence.

I look back at what we've done in the mideast and i want to change out the whole bridge crew.

NOT O's doing alone...
Compare directors of PNAC and its successor FPI.I look back at last fifteen years of monetary policy and i want to change out the whole bridge crew..

We're 16 trillion in debt and taking on water

It's interesting that one hears a lot about the broken political system, since it appears to have been broken for a long time. Looking back more than 20 years ago:

Best government money can buy...

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/

Look at first line and ask "Why'd the banks get bailed out ?"
Look at 13th line .
When Ike warned us in his farewell address of a "Military Industrial Complex" growing to wield undue influence,
he unwittingly spilled the beans to groups 1 thru 12 .

As i said last Friday night

Regulatory capture by unethical corporations is IMHO this nation's biggest problem.

i'll stop now.

Hoping for change,

old jim

 

[jim hardy]

PS

re Trump's wall:

Obama and Hillary both voted YEA on the 2006 "Secure the Fence" bill.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s262

The Secure Fence Act of 2006’s goal is to help secure America’s borders to decrease illegal entry, drug trafficking, and security threats by building 700 miles (1,100 km) of physical barriers along the Mexico-United States border.

 

[DiracPool]

You might as well have said you are okay with corruption and bribery. How do you possibly think anyone can take you seriously on any subject at all once you've said that?

What are you living in fantasyland? You don't think that practically every politician is beholden to special interests that help them get where they are? That's why it's called "politics." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics

"especially: competition between competing interest groups or individuals for power and leadership (as in a government)"

This is why this election season is so notable. Politicians are beholden to special interests groups because again, practically all of them do not have the personal resources one needs to run for office, especially higher offices, the presidency being the highest. So that was the point of my post. My point is that I understand that she is beholden to her supporters and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that she telegraphs it too much. She's too stiff. She looks like every move she makes is working off a script. It's one of those situations where I want to vote for her, all she has to do is not screw it up. The thing I like about Trump is that he looks like he could improvise on the fly. I like that quality. I don't know if Hillary has that confidence and spontaneity. It just feels like before she makes any decision she's going to have work a complex calculus as to is it OK with these people and those people and what decision do I need to make in order to piss off the fewest people I can. I don't like that. I know that's how these things often go in politics, but she needs to hide it better.

That's the thing that Trump has going for him. He's not "politically" correct because he doesn't have to be. This is a rare thing. He's really kind of the anti-Hillary. He's working off a whole different playbook that the public is buying into because, frankly, a good portion of the American public is sick and tired of political correctness. Hillary is the poster child for political correctness. She's working overtime not to offend anyone. What you lose in the process, though, is honesty. You lose conviction and decisiveness. For example, I'm hoping that she saw through the Bush administration's fraudulent pitch to the American public about the necessity of invading Iraq. I really do. But she voted to allow it, anyway? Why was that? Because she didn't want to look like she wasn't hawkish in international diplomacy. That's my guess. Big mistake. I really think that may have been the singular reason she lost the 2008 nomination. Obama voted against the Iraq invasion. Simple as that.